Dewayne Bryant's Blog, page 17

The Improbable Doctrine

The resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. As the apostle Paul states, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). As Christians gather all over the world every Sunday to remember Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, we want to ask the question, “Did it really happen?” Christians believe that Christ’s defeat of death was part of his work. Critics argue that it was a fairy tale or myth invented by early believers. Let’s explore several reasons why the resurrection makes a strange myth.

There is no explanation for the multiple witnesses of the resurrected Christ. Mass delusion and hallucination simply do not account for the hundreds of people who saw Jesus alive after he was buried. Furthermore, the earliest statements that mention the resurrection are thought by scholars to have appeared only a few years after the event. This leaves no time for a resurrection myth or legend to grow and develop. The belief in the resurrection appears almost immediately.
Jesus was viewed as a criminal who got what he deserved. After Jesus claimed to be a king—despite his kingdom being a spiritual one—Pilate could not afford to allow him to live. The authorities did not permit challenges to Roman power. Besides, making an executed criminal, charlatan, and false prophet the leader of a movement focused on maintaining the highest moral standards does not seem very reasonable.
The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus defied Jewish expectations. Early on, it seems that considerable numbers of Jews flocked to the church. The book of James, for instance, seems to be written to a group of Jewish Christians. This happened in spite of the fact that Jews would have considered Jesus not only a failed messiah but a false one in light of the Mosaic Law: “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God.” (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). Additionally, Jews expected a general resurrection at the end of time.
There is no motive for creating such a belief. Believers stood to gain nothing of earthly value by worshipping a risen Christ. Indeed, it was quite the opposite. Early Christians defied the cultural norms of Greco-Roman culture and paid a heavy price for it. They were claimed to be atheists because they did not worship the gods of Rome. The authorities viewed them as disloyal to the state because they refused to acknowledge Caesar as Lord – a title they believed only Christ deserved. They were imprisoned, tortured, and executed, often on the strength of nothing more than an anonymous tip. Given an opportunity to renounce Christ or die, many chose the latter.
Ancient writers understood that Jesus began a movement that did not die with him. In his Antiquities, Josephus states, “The tribe of Christians so named from his are not extinct to this day.” (This passage is often claimed as spurious by critics, but there are no examples of prominent scholars of Josephus doing so.) In The Death of Peregrine, the second century satirist Lucian of Samosata—who was certainly no friend to Christians—called Jesus a “crucified sage” who introduced the “novel rites” that Christians practiced. Other writers such as Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and others mention early Christians as well. Every other messianic movement failed and died out. Christianity is the only one to survive, much less thrive.

The resurrection of Christ, if it is a myth, does not build upon any cultural precedent or preexisting notion. It defied the expectations of those in the first century. It was believed by those who paid a price for their faith. In the end, there was not earthly benefit for believing in a risen Christ. Then again, he was no earthly Savior.

Noah – A Review

I went to see Noah on opening night. I tried to find two words to describe my experience.

That’s ridiculous.

How bizarre!

$10 wasted?

Wait, I’ve got it. Mind. Blown.

Standing alone, apart from the biblical text, the movie is fairly good. It tells a coherent story, offers characters that we can care about, and features moving performances (especially from Jennifer Connelly and Emma Watson). Anthony Hopkins is delightful. The only thing is that it’s a biblical movie that isn’t biblical. And if you’ve got a movie that purports to tell the story of a biblical character (and whose story the director claims “completely accepts the text”), we as an audience are right to expect it to at least get a majority of the story right.

Although director Darren Arnofsky and at least one reviewer considered the film a solid adaptation faithful to the biblical text, consider the following problems:

Lamech and Noah both use a glowing snakeskin shed by the serpent in the garden in Eden when they bless their family members. What purpose this serves goes unexplained in the movie, and it never appears in the Bible.
Noah rebukes his son for picking a flower, stating that it belongs in the ground. He later decimates a magical forest to build the ark.
Cain founds cities that serve as centers of culture and technology, but that are degenerate and decrepit – like ancient versions of Detroit. Their inhabitants are a bunch of unwashed warmongers who look like the ancestors of the post-apocalyptic weirdos in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.
Move over Chuck Norris – Methuselah is a righteous dude who gets it done. He has a sword that shoots out fire and annihilates an entire army. He puts Shem to sleep by touching his forehead and later heals Shem’s girlfriend Illa of her barrenness (apparently, in addition to being the world’s oldest man he is also the first obstetrician).
Tubal-Cain hops on board the ark as a stowaway for nine months. During this time he eats the animals, with only Ham being any the wiser.
Speaking of animals, Noah’s wife puts them all in a state of hibernation with some kind of herbal concoction burned in censers. Unlike the “herbs” that you can now obtain legally in Colorado, it has absolutely no effect on the humans.
Noah’s wife has Illa perform a pregnancy test by spitting on a leaf.
A disturbing twist is that Noah becomes increasingly obsessed with the destruction of the human race. He vows to kill his grandchild once it is born if it is a girl (because she could perpetuate humanity). And he almost does exactly that, but changes his mind at the last moment after Illa sings a pretty song.
If you look closely at the ark, is bears a bumper sticker saying, “Save the Planet. Kill Yourself.” (okay, I’m just kidding about this one. But Noah practically states as much during the course of the movie.)

In a rather starry-eyed and disappointing review at ChristianityToday.com, Alissa Wilkinson describes the film as  “solid adaptation” that is “startlingly fresh,” asking “big questions,” and telling “a story about how it could have happened.” All of these are arguably, if not totally and demonstrably, false. Another review at the National Catholic Register states:

For a lifelong Bible geek and lover of movie-making and storytelling like me, Noah is a rare gift: a blend of epic spectacle, startling character drama and creative reworking of Scripture and other ancient Jewish and rabbinic writings. It’s a movie with much to look at, much to think about and much to feel; a movie to argue about, and argue with.

Creative reworking of Scripture is right. Not only does the film manage to butcher the biblical account, it does so in a way that any Christian should find startling and even offensive. It takes a story told in the form of historical narrative and forces it into the realm of mythology. By combining biblical stories about Noah with others drawn from myth, the result is a fiction regardless of how respectfully it’s treated. Once you add the fantastic, it taints everything. I’m all for exploring biblical themes, but communicating a biblical theme in a manner alien to the Bible just doesn’t work.

This is the big point being missed by all the reviewers who give the movie two thumbs up and chide their fellow believers for being so grumpy: Aronofsky has mixed myth into the story. And it should be as odd and attention-getting as watching the nightly news and seeing an Amber Alert for two children named Hansel and Gretel who were last spotted in the vicinity of the old witch’s cottage or hearing a report on the BBC that St. George has been called in as a consultant after locals spotted dragons flying around Buckingham Palace. Yes, Aronofsky probably knows as much about the Noah story and references to it in Jewish literature as a bona fide scholar. But that doesn’t change the fact that he knows so little about the Bible itself that he could possibly think that the Bible and later Jewish literature on the subject are even compatible on the worldview level (hint: they aren’t. It’s like mixing milk and orange juice).

On the positive side, the special effects are awesome. And the fact that it is gritty and dark where it needs to be does put a real face on the evil that covered the earth. Aronofsky depicts a world worthy of destruction. Violence and murder abound. Desperate, hungry people rip living animals apart for food. Darkness and death creep like a plague across the earth. We understand that its savagery must be extinguished. We sympathize with Noah in the difficult work he is called to do, and our hearts break upon seeing dozens of people clinging to the last bit of rock above water, knowing that soon that the angry deep will consume them like everything else.

The movie is dark, yet has frequent glimmers of hope. There is a minimum of language, which is refreshing. In one scene, Shem and Illa (played by Emma Watson) are intimate, although almost nothing is shown (nevertheless, I fought the urge to stand up in the theatre and yell, “Nooooo!!! Don’t do it, Hermione!!!).

There is an unmistakably obvious environmentalist theme in the movie (the Bible states that violence is the problem that triggers God’s justice, not his treatment of creation). This isn’t surprising, since Aronofsky once claimed that Noah was the first environmentalist. Noah states that mankind is being punished for what they have done to the world, calling the animals “innocent” and repeatedly referring to mankind as “judged” (including those on the ark, which completely ignores the covenant theme of Genesis 6-9). He is going to slay his granddaughters to ensure that humanity will die out, which he seems to think is the will of God. In a somewhat confused twist, Noah refuses to kill his kin, which he later regrets and interprets as failure on his part. He is also rather forgetful – he spends a lot of time telling the creation story but apparently forgets that man is the apex of God’s creation and is pronounced “very good” (Genesis 1:31). He also forgets the fact that man is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27).

Some have tried to argue that religious movies like Noah build cultural bridges. Why destroy these aids? So what if they “miss by a little”? Well, it’s not just missing by “a little.” It’s actually quite a lot. It inserts themes we do not find in the Bible, and downplays or dismisses the ones that are there. It tries to create a marriage between myth and historical narrative. In the end, it respects the biblical text by generally treating it as true, and disrespects it by not letting it tell its own story without bizarre creative additions and reinterpretations.

Movies like Noah are another reason why many secularists find it hard—if not impossible—to take the Bible seriously.

Against All Gods

My family and have been watching The Bible on DVD for the past couple of days. While many Christians were upset that it did not follow the Bible more closely, we saw it as an opportunity to help our children visualize the stories of the patriarchs, Moses and his battle with Pharaoh, and the life of Christ. The acting is quite good, and the quality of production is high. There are numerous differences from the text and mistakes in the presentation of ancient culture, but I see those as teaching moments where I can tell my family “how it really was.”

Last night we watched the episode dealing with the exodus from Egypt. Each time one of the plagues devastated the land, Pharaoh screamed No! to Moses’ request that the Hebrews be allowed to leave. My heart went out to those poor Egyptians over three thousand years ago who suffered catastrophe. Because of one man’s arrogance, millions suffered.

The Ten Plagues weren’t just warning signs or punishments. They were victories in divine warfare between the God of the Bible and the gods of Egypt. Every time God shows his superiority. Each plague reveals the nonexistence of the Egyptian deities. Despite the suffering that wracked him and his people, Pharaoh refused to yield. Do we find the same attitude today? I think so. In fact, I’m sure of it.

The Egyptians had a very different mindset than the Hebrews. So do many people today. Rather than worshipping God and recognizing his Son as Lord and Savior, many people insist on practicing the modern equivalent of idolatry. Consequently, crime is rampant. Some who prize wealth and possessions will steal in order to satisfy their hunger for material things. Those addicted to alcohol or mood-altering substances destroy their own lives in pursuit of the next drink or dose. Within each person is a furnace of pride, which, if left unchecked, is ultimately lethal. And too many of us have a gnawing emptiness in our hearts, because we have tried to fill that need for God with something other than him.

The gods of this world still call out for worshippers. And there is a steady stream of them. But it’s our task as Christians to help them see what—or better, who—will truly make them free.

Revisiting Islam

“Is Islam Really Violent?” was a blog post I made about two weeks ago. I asked individuals to consider a few passages from the Qur’an and other important Islamic texts. Expecting to find some disagreement with my view, I tried to be as objective as possible. And it did not go unchallenged – a friend of mine thought that I had misrepresented the religion. And he pointed me to a helpful website by a Muslim for my consideration. I thanked him for his input.

Some will claim that I have misunderstood Islam. And there is no doubt, as I have said before, that many Muslims practice it as a religion of peace. But many do not. And this is evident in a recent article concerning a formerly Muslim family in Pakistan. Muslims in the Punjab province have threatened to kill a young woman and members of her family because of her conversion to Christianity. The family is in hiding and fears for their lives. They have been told that members of their family will be kidnapped and murdered for this “crime.” Sadly, stories like this are abundant. It is a symptom of a deeper attitude prevalent in fundamentalist and extremist Islam.

Another example is found in a March 14, 2013 interview with Talaat Afifi, the deputy head of the Islamic Legal Body for Rights and Reform. According to an article on the Brookings Institution’s website, this group comprises over a hundred of Egypt’s leading Islamist scholars and activists. When asked by an interviewer if he would ever visit Israel, Afifi said, “Let’s wait until it happens. However, we hope that the words of the Prophet Muhammad will be fulfilled: “Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, but the rocks and the trees will say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” (This is one of the passages I cited in my original post.)

Some people may view stories like these and be tempted to think, “People like that don’t deserve the gospel.” But Jesus told his people to go and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19; Mark 13:10). He didn’t give any qualifiers as to which ones. This is what makes the gospel unique. Ethnic and national boundaries are unrecognized in the New Testament – as are boundaries of all kinds, because the gospel is for all. Everyone is in need of Christ because everyone has sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23). It is not our duty to determine who has fallen farther than others, or who should be disqualified for it. The command of Christ compels us to reach out to those who are in desperate need of him.

Stepping on Jesus

A few days ago, a class at Florida Atlantic University was instructed to write the name “Jesus” on a piece of paper, then place it on the floor and step on it. One student in the class, a devout Mormon, refused. The class exercise was intended—so the explanation goes—to foster critical thinking, and question politically correctness. There seem to be conflicting accounts over whether the entire class was required to follow through with the exercise, and what consequences the student was to face afterward. The school has since engaged in damage control, distancing themselves from the professor.

On Fox News, Juan Williams defended the exercise, citing free speech as the reason why the exercise should not be removed from the curriculum. But this raises another question: there are plenty of names that could have been written on those pieces of paper. Perhaps another religious figure, like Allah or Muhammad? Or a political figure, like President Obama? Or maybe some other important social figure, like Martin Luther King, Jr.? Many other choices are far more polarizing than the name of Christ, so why choose the name of Jesus for the exercise?

Another question we might ask is whether the instructor could have chosen to make the point a different way. He could have had all the students write a list of names on one piece of paper. He could have had individuals write the names of one person they considered to be a figure representing what’s right with the world on one side, and another whom they consider to be a source of conflict and difficulty on the other. Or why not try to discuss cultural symbols in a different manner, such as one that avoids conflict altogether?

Some might argue that criticizing Jesus, the church, or Christianity in general represents the ultimate taboo. So if the exercise is really about understanding the power of symbols, then Christianity seems like it would provide the most tempting targets. But let’s look at our society for a moment. Which name is used as a swear word? Jesus, in a wealth of permutations. God’s name runs a close second. And this is just what you can find by tuning in to nearly any channel on the television. You can find far worse with only a little more effort. Given our society’s infatuation with disrespecting all things sacred, it seems that his name has been stepped upon enough already.

Is Islam Really Violent?

September 11, 2001 made the Western world aware of Islam like never before. Twelve years ago, many Americans knew that Islam existed, but knew very little about it. Few would have known who Osama bin Laden or the Taliban were. The destruction of the World Trade Center changed everything.

A couple of nights ago on The Factor, Bill O’Reilly made some an interesting comments about Islam (I don’t normally watch the program, because although O’Reilly is a pretty bright guy, he is terribly rude to friends and foes alike). He mentioned that Islamic countries will always despise the United States because they see us as infidels. Contrary to what we might hear from the media, he is correct.

We often hear in the mainstream media that Islam is a religion of peace. It was (in)famously stated as such by President George W. Bush, as well as by others from a more leftist political bent. Unfortunately, there are more than a few disturbing quotes that contradict that evaluation. Please consider the following:

• In Muhammad’s own words, “Paradise lies under the shade of swords” (Sahih Al-Bukhari vol. 4, book 52, no. 73).

• In Sura 2:216, Allah commands his people to wage war: “Prescribed for you is fighting, though it be hateful to you. Yet it may happen that you will hate a thing which is better for you; and it may happen that you will love a thing which is worse for you; God knows, and you know not.” Trust Allah. If he orders the death of the infidel, the faithful must follow those orders in spite of their own consciences.

• Sura 5:54 says, “O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. God guides not the people of the evildoers.” Although Muslim apologists claim that Jews and Christians are “people of the book” (which was true earlier in Muhammad’s life), later revelation given to the Prophet reversed this position.

• In Sahih Al-Muslim Book 41, Number 6985, we read, “Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.” Even nature hates the Jews. This sentiment is obvious in leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who have made it clear that one of their goals is the destruction of Israel.

Someone might ask, “But aren’t there similar statements in the Bible about war and destruction?” Yes and no. Yes, in that there are descriptions of war and commands to engage in war. No, in that those instances occur in the Old Testament and refer to one-time events. The words of the Prophet are commands that are to be followed by faithful Muslims in perpetuity. Christians are to demonstrate a faith that is willing to be insulted and even injured (Matthew 5:39) without retribution or retaliation, because it is God himself who will avenge (Romans 12:19).

I have known and worked with a number of Muslims. They seemed very friendly, and were very respectful. But I was in Egypt, which has been one of the most secular Muslim countries in the Middle East (this will possibly change with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power there). America supports Israel, and therefore devout Muslims see us as a friend of Jews. But the Muslim faithful also see us as a decadent nation. Studies have strongly suggested that the reason for jihadist attacks is politically—not religiously—motivated.

There are signs of hope. Muslims are converting to Christianity in record numbers. For some reason, many of them are citing dreams of Jesus as the cause. We can only pray that more and more Muslims reject the harbinger of death who could only raise the sword and embrace the bringer of life who will raise the dead.

The Bible and the Bubble

My family and I have seen the first three episodes of The Bible and find them fairly curious. There are quite a few inaccuracies in the programs, not only in the presentation of the biblical record, but also with regard to the ancient culture. I’ve read the comments of some folks who refused to watch the program or who have criticized it. I sympathize with their viewpoint – naturally, I want it to follow the biblical text much more closely than it has. But I am also concerned with the mindset of the critics. Does it reflect a genuine concern for biblical accuracy, or is it a sign of living in a bubble?

I’m firmly convinced that one of the reasons why people are leaving the church is the existence of a “fundy-bubble,” as some call it. Too many Christians have made the church into their own spiritual and intellectual ghetto – a fortress of solitude to protect them from the world. Rather than learning how to engage the culture and help transform it, some Christians sit back and merely criticize culture, making sure they don’t dirty themselves by ever coming into contact with it. I don’t think this is what Jesus had in mind when he told his followers to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). I think that the apostle Paul would take issue with that viewpoint as well, given his comments about destroying opposing arguments (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5; 1 Timothy 1:18). You cannot wage a war if you avoid the enemy.

I have read several stories of a person raised in a Christian home who later left for another church fellowship, denomination, or spiritual path. Just this morning, I read a “deconversion” story about a young woman who was raised in a strict Christian household. Between being sheltered from the world and being forced to go to church, this young woman felt like she had to choose between the two. She is now a relatively happy atheist. Living in a bubble is not only inadvisable, but unbiblical.

Over the next few weeks I will be posting some of my own observations on The Bible, pointing out not only the inaccuracies, but also those points that I thought were interesting and even helpful. Whether you’ve seen The Bible, plan to see it, or refuse to see it, I hope you will join me.

Things Christians Say to Atheists (2/2)

Last time we covered the first half of ten items that Christians supposedly say to atheists and the “translations” provided by a militant atheist. The translations were little more than wishful thinking. These are, too.

6. “Our nation is falling apart because we’ve taken God out of the courts and schools.” Translation: “I am terrified by change. I want my religion to call the shots in society. Why can’t life get back to being like Leave It to Beaver and The Andy Griffith Show?”

There is a correlation between the escalating levels of crime in society and the removal of the influence of Christianity from it. It is more nuanced that this, though? Almost certainly. But, when you teach people that they are accountable to no one but themselves and the moral code of their own choosing, who is to say that criminal activity should be disallowed? Shouldn’t that be up to the individual to decide? Besides, if “change” means “escalating levels of degeneracy, crime, and devaluation of human life,” why shouldn’t we be against it?

Translation of the translation: “Yeah, we can’t really make a good case against transcendent morality, so let’s sneak in a good, old-fashioned ad hominem argument and hope they don’t catch it.”

7. “Religion gives people hope and does a lot of good.” Translation: “So what if it’s not true… it’s useful!”

Again, we’re talking about things that Christians say here (a common problem for the less careful atheist is to simply lump Christianity in with all the other world religions). But does religion do good things? Absolutely. Look at Christianity specifically. One of its main concerns is for the well-being and flourishing of others. Why shouldn’t that be a selling point?

Translation of the translation: “I’m going to take a minor point and translate it so that it sounds like a much more important and utilitarian argument than it really is.”

8. “So you believe in… nothing?” Translation: “But I’m so used to letting the god virus call the shots in my life. How would I make it through the day without religion telling me what to think and do? Way too scary!”

Ahh, yes – the old “mind control” argument. It never gets old … for militant unbelievers, anyway. What militant atheists simply refuse to acknowledge is that Christianity encourages the use of the mind. Here we have an example of what is called “epistemic closure” – basically, the closing of the mind. The militant atheist basically says, “I think Christianity is all about ignorance and control (probably because an atheist I respect told me so), so don’t bother me with details to the contrary.” It’s elitist. And sad.

Translation of the translation: “I can’t imagine anyone recognizing an external source of authority to influence what they think. That’s just one of the many things the new atheists have taught me to believe.”

9. “Here, read this. It will change your mind.” Translation: “I don’t have any answers so instead I’ll give you a poorly-written book filled with straw-man arguments.”

Christians often use tracts or booklets in evangelism, that’s no secret. But guess what? So do atheists. Especially the new atheists, who generally recommend each other’s work to everyone, and point out other sources not only for unbelievers to confirm their disbelief but to offer believers to convert them to atheism. And the “poorly-written material? Generally speaking, this is just a caricature. It doesn’t agree with their point of view, so it has to be bad by definition.

Translation of the translation: “I’m not going to bother reading anything that will challenge my worldview. So, I’m just going to keep believing that everyone who disagrees with me is a stupid, ignorant, deluded or wicked. Just like Richard Dawkins told me!”

10. “I can’t imagine life without Jesus. He is everything to me!” Translation: “Jesus is like meth: Both foster addictive dependency and ultimately destroy our ability to feel pleasure.”

And how can anything in the Christian life be compared to a self-destructive addiction? Well, if you come from a worldview completely divorced from reality where you believe that faith is incorrigibly evil, then I suppose you can. Our author seems to have made it clear that he isn’t to be bothered with details. Any Christian worthy of the name will tell you that committing themselves to Christ is liberating and serves as a source of joy. What we have in this list, thus far, is a rather naïve and closed-minded refusal to examine the Christian viewpoint with any honesty.

Translation of the translation: “I’m going to deliberately confuse commitment with addiction so that I can compare Jesus to drugs. Forget the fact that Christianity is responsible four countless hospitals, orphanages, and charities around the world that have helped tens if not hundreds of millions of people. I don’t like it, so it has to be bad regardless of what the evidence says!”

Things Christians Say to Atheists (1/2)

Thanks to a friend of mine, I came across a post on the blog Debunking Christianity titled “[Expletive] Christians say to Atheists: Translated (Part 1).” Author J.M. Green “translates” some common statements that Christians supposedly say. Of course, his attempt at witty humor really isn’t anything more than a thinly-veiled attempt to marginalize Christianity. But, I think it’s valuable enough to consider here.

The post begins with the following: “You’ve heard them over and over – all those clichéd, annoying questions and silly statements that Christians throw in your face. Well, let’s have a little fun at the expense of fundamentalists and translate what they really mean. After all, as the Good Book says: ‘A merry heart doeth good like a medicine.’”

I’ll answer each one of the ten points, and provide my own “translation of the translation” after them. I’m giving the first five here.

1. “You’ll think differently when you stand before God at the final judgment!” Translation: “I really don’t have any reasoned rebuttals to your arguments so I will comfort myself by imagining you burning in Hell for all eternity.”

First of all, telling people they’re going to hell is never a good method of evangelism. It is confrontational and generally very, very unhelpful. But no genuine Christian would ever take comfort in others burning in hell for all eternity.

Translation of the translation: “I don’t like being held to standards, especially Christian standards, so I’m going to comfort myself by assuming without evidence that all Christians are more hateful and spiteful than I could ever be.”

2. “You have no meaning and purpose in life, without God. What’s stopping you from killing yourself?” Translation: “I’m really [ticked off] that I have to give so much of my time and money to my church and you don’t. I wish I could sleep in on Sunday mornings, think for myself, and not feel guilty for watching porn. Go die!”

If we are talking about transcendent, ultimate meaning, then actually this statement is true. Atheism cannot offer ultimate meaning. Any attempt to do so would presuppose the transcendent reality that atheism explicitly denies. As far as the “translation” goes, no Christian would say anything like this. It is nothing short of a total failure to understand the Christian worldview (if someone really wanted to sleep in and watch pornography, why bother going to church in the first place?). Of course, anyone coming up with a list like this could never be accused of knowing much about Christianity, anyway.

Translation of the translation: “I can’t possibly imagine someone not adopting my worldview, so Christians MUST be believers against their will. So I’m just going to choose to believe that they waste their lives believing something against their will and hating others for not doing the same. Makes sense, right?”

3. “Without God, you have no basis for morality. What’s stopping you from murdering, raping, and robbing?” Translation: “My religion has brainwashed me into believing that every human being on the planet is a psychopathic anarchist at heart.”

The question is legitimate, but there are better ways to ask it. Most people are sensitive enough to others to refrain from murdering, raping, and robbing them (but, who has ever lived a perfect life? Who has never cheated or told a lie?). The question is about the basis of morality. Without a transcendent basis, then morality is defined by the individual, whether it is his or her own personal choice or the willingness to adhere to the moral code of another person, group, or society. The very fact that humanity everywhere—including militant atheism—uses terms like “good” and “evil” and “ought” with regard to morality indicates the recognition of a need for a transcendent basis for making moral decisions.

Translation of the translation: “I can’t deal with the fact that I don’t have a transcendent basis of morality, so I’ll just caricature the Christian position to make them look like hatemongers. In in an age of tolerance, there’s nothing more sure-fire than calling someone intolerant!”

4. “I’ll pray for you.” Translation: “If I talk to you any longer, I might lose my faith and become an atheist, so I am exiting this conversation.”

Ridiculous. Anyone who says (genuinely) that they are praying for another person is concerned about that individual’s soul. To think otherwise is gross assumption.

Translation of the translation: “Christianity can’t possibly have any good arguments despite the fact that some of the most brilliant thinkers in history have been Christians, so I’ll just misinterpret their concern as “escape and evade” tactics.”

5. “Atheism has killed more people than religion.” Translation: “The reason dictators lead repressive regimes is simply because they don’t believe in a Supreme Ruler of the universe who requires that everyone bow the knee to him, and plans on torturing disloyal subjects, for all eternity.”

The statement is true; the “translation” is partially correct, although it’s really little more than a pot shot at God. Atheistic regimes in the 20th century alone have been responsible for tens, if not hundreds, of millions of deaths. It’s no coincidence that the most notable of these maniacs were non-Christian (Pol Pot), anti-Christian (Lenin, Stalin), or used Christianity as a political tool without actually having any genuine faith (Hitler). But the translation is curious. If I’m reading it correctly, essentially it’s saying “disbelief leads to psychopathy.” Sorry, but no intelligent Christian is going to make this argument. There are plenty of examples of atheists and agnostics who lead noble lives. They just don’t do it for the same reasons Christians do.

Translation of the translation: “Let’s just try to make believers look silly and naïve. In the absence of a good argument, that always seems to work!”

DJesus Uncrossed: Bigotry as Entertainment?

“He’s risen from the dead … and he’s preaching anything but forgiveness.”

A recent show of Saturday Night Live included a mock trailer for DJesus Uncrossed (playing off of the Quentin Tarantino film Django Unchained). It was witty and creative, but for many, also deeply offensive. After rising from the grave, the Son of God cuts down a cadre of Roman soldiers with a katana and sends Judas Iscariot to the afterlife with a shotgun blast to the chest. In a nod to another Tarantino film (Inglourious Basterds), the Apostle Peter marshals the other eleven to go on rampage, killing “Ro-mans.”

Writing for the entertainment section of Time online, James Poniewozik argues that the entire skit is satire. The focus is not on the biblical story of Jesus, but on the ridiculous gore and violence prevalent in Tarantino’s films. Poniewozik argues that they’re so gory and violent that even a film about Jesus would twist the portrait of the forgiving, peaceful Son of God into a bloodthirsty action hero.

I understand Poniewozik’s explanation. After all, the skit is certainly shot in Tarantino’s style. And as I said, it was witty and creative. But explaining it as satire doesn’t quite work. You might be able to sell that to a hipster crowd of Manhattan intelligentsia, but there are some things that should be off limits. Why so? Let’s as a few questions.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was known for preaching a message of peace and peaceful resistance against injustice and bigotry. Would SNL ever consider doing a skit depicting King going on a violent rampage? Maybe a midnight raid on a KKK meeting, blowing a Grand Wizard and all his little minions to bloody bits with a .50 Browning Machine Gun?

Tibetan monks practice one of the best examples of commitment to non-violence in the world. What if the Dalai Lama ripped off his orange robe to reveal a Batman-like suit of armor underneath, and launched out on a rampage against the Chinese, flinging throwing stars with machine-like precision and decapitating his opponents with reckless abandon? Maybe with a tagline something like, “He’s won the Nobel Peace Prize … but now it’s judgment day!”

The skit wouldn’t have been received so poorly if NBC—and the media in general, for that matter—had a better track record of its treatment of Christianity. As it stands, we have shows routinely mocking Christianity and Christians, like the cancelled ABC comedy-drama GCB (based on the book Good Christian [expletive]), about a bunch of Southern belles who are little more than religious hypocrites. I watched an episode of Criminal Minds just last week in which a Christian father was blamed squarely for turning his homosexual son into a psychopathic serial murderer. And when the murderer was captured, he was told, “It’s not your fault.”

I wasn’t terribly offended by DJesus Uncrossed, but I was saddened and disappointed. Especially that anyone could portray the Son of God as a violent, vengeful agent of death. Even if it was satire.